NEXT GENERATION BIOWEAPONS:

THE TECHNOLOGY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

APPLIED TO BIOWARFARE AND BIOTERRORISM

by

Michael J. Ainscough, Colonel, USAF

The Counterproliferation Papers

Future Warfare Series No. 14
USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air War College

Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
 Next Generation Bioweapons:
The Technology Of Genetic Engineering
Applied To Biowarfare And Bioterrorism

Michael J. Ainscough, Colonel, USAF

April 2002

The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF

Counterproliferation Center to provide information and analysis to assist
the understanding of the U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF
officers to help them better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of
mass destruction. Copies of No. 14 and previous papers in this series are
available from the USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault
Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-
7530; phone (334) 953-7538.

Counterproliferation Paper No. 14

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air War College

Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6427

The internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation Center is:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm
Contents

Page
Disclaimer.....................................................................................................i
The Author.................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... iii
I. Introduction .............................................................................................1
II. The Former Soviet Union’s Biological Warfare Program .....................3
III. Genetic Engineering, Bioterrorism and Biowarfare ...........................11
IV. Six Paths to Enhance Biothreats.........................................................17
V. Six Ways Science Can Improve Biodefense........................................23
VI. Conclusions ........................................................................................27
Notes ..........................................................................................................29
Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do
not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government,
Department of Defense, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center.

i
The Author

Colonel Michael J. Ainscough, M.D., M.P.H., is an Air Force

flight surgeon and a diplomat of the American Board of Preventive
Medicine in Aerospace Medicine. Prior to attending Air War College in
residence, he was the 92d Aeromedical-Dental Squadron Commander at
Fairchild AFB, Washington. Other assignments included tours as Chief of
Aerospace Medicine at the 343d Medical Group, Eielson AFB, Alaska;
Chief of Operations Branch, Hyperbaric Medicine Division, Armstrong
Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX; Chief, Aeromedical Evacuation Branch,
Professional Services Directorate, Office of the Air Mobility Command
Surgeon; and then Chief, Clinical Aeromedical Evacuation for the
Global Patient Movement Requirements Center of USTRANSCOM at
Scott AFB, IL. Colonel Ainscough completed USAF Squadron Officers
School in residence and was an outstanding graduate of the Air Command
and Staff and Air War College seminar programs. He earned his
Bachelor’s degree from the St. Louis College of Pharmacy and his
Doctorate of Medicine from the Southern Illinois University School of
Medicine. He completed a USAF Residency in Aerospace Medicine and a
Fellowship in Hyperbaric Medicine at Brooks AFB, TX. He also
completed a Masters in Public Health degree at the University of Texas.
Colonel Ainscough’s military decorations include the Defense Meritorious
Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak Leaf
Clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Air Force Achievement
Medal, and the Humanitarian Service Medal. In 1989, he was named the
Alaskan Air Command Flight Surgeon of the Year, and in 2001 he was
nominated by Air Mobility Command for the Paul Myers Award. He is a
Senior Flight Surgeon with 1,100 total flying hours in over 20 types of
military aircraft.

ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my Air War
College faculty advisors, Dr. Barry Schneider and Col (Dr.) Jim Davis,
who serve as the Director and Deputy Director of the USAF
Counterproliferation Center, respectively. Their encouragement,
mentoring, and guidance significantly contributed to the value of this
work. I also must thank my wonderful wife Cathy and our sons, Ty and
Drew, for their understanding and support throughout my entire Air Force
career.

iii
iv
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 1

Next Generation Bioweapons:

The Technology of Genetic Engineering
Applied to Biowarfare and Bioterrorism
Michael J. Ainscough

I. Introduction
The history of warfare and the history of disease are unquestionably
interwoven. Throughout the history of warfare, disease and non-battle
injury have accounted for more deaths and loss of combat capability than
from actual battle in war itself. The most striking example is the great
influenza pandemic during World War I that killed 20 million people or
more worldwide in 1918.1 Although this was a naturally occurring event,
what if a country could create a biological agent that could yield the same
catastrophic loss of life on the enemy? That, in essence, is the potential
effect of applying genetic engineering2 for biological warfare (BW) or
bioterrorism (BT).
Today, we face not only natural diseases (including emerging
infectious diseases), but also threats of BW or BT, possibly with
genetically engineered agents, that may resist known therapies. In simple
terms, genetic engineering is the process of human intervention to transfer
functional genes (DNA) between two biological organisms. In the
BW/BT context, it is the manipulation of genes to create new pathogenic
characteristics (increased survivability, infectivity, virulence, drug
resistance, etc). Organisms with altered characteristics are the “next
generation” biological weapons.
In this century, it is widely predicted that advances in biology and
biotechnology will revolutionize society and life as we know it. At the
same time, the “black biology” of biotechnology which can be used to
create biological weapons, will be one of the gravest threats we will face.
In this era when cloning and “designer genes” are topics of the evening
news, much has been written about biowarfare and bioterrorism resulting
from genetically altered microbes, and it is often difficult to discern fact
from fiction. This paper has two purposes. The first part consolidates
2 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

accounts of genetic engineering from sources close to the former Soviet

Union’s BW program. The remainder of the paper discusses near-term
future capabilities of genetic engineering and biological warfare from an
American perspective. The “next generation” of biological weapons made
possible through genetic engineering will be asymmetric weapons par
excellence.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 3

II. The Former Soviet Union’s Biological Warfare Program

Biopreparat

Despite signing the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention

(BWC), it is now certain that the former Soviet Union (FSU) continued a
clandestine and illegal offensive biological weapons program until at least
the early 1990s. Biopreparat (a huge military program with civilian cover)
was organized to develop and weaponize biological agents for BW.3 It
employed approximately half of the Soviet Union’s 60,000 workers in
more than 18 BW facilities, and in the 1980s had an annual budget
equivalent to tens of millions of U.S. dollars.4 Unlike the American
offensive BW program (1942-69) that worked primarily with organisms
that were not contagious in humans (e.g., anthrax and tularemia), the
Soviet BW research and development program also sought out the most
contagious and lethal bacteria (e.g., plague) and viruses (e.g., smallpox)
known to man.5
Because Biopreparat and other Soviet BW research facilities operated
under the highest security classification of “Special Importance” (higher
than Top Secret), the U.S. intelligence community did not even know it
existed until 1989 when a top ranking scientist from the BW program
defected to the United Kingdom.6 From his extensive debrief, and
subsequent collaboration by two other defectors from the program, we
now know detailed information on the genetic engineering successes and
other advances in Russian microbiology. Obviously much of the data
remains classified, but the three defectors’ accounts have been
documented to some extent in various unclassified books and articles.
This paper discusses their open-source accounts.

Pasechnik

In October 1989, Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, the first primary source

from inside the Soviet program, defected to England.7 A top Soviet
microbiologist and Director of the Institute for Ultra Pure Biological
Preparations in Biopreparat, he described the extensive organization of
biological research and production facilities in the program.
4 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

In addition to confirming that the Soviet Union had an offensive BW

program in violation of the 1972 BWC, he disclosed that the Soviets had
an “extensive genetic engineering program aimed at developing new kinds
of biological weapons against which the West would be defenseless.”8 His
institute’s top priority was to increase the lethality of plague and
tularemia, and at the same time make them more resistant to antibiotics
and temperature extremes. By introducing specially engineered plasmids9
into successive generations of tularemia cultures, the strain became
resistant to all known Western antibiotics. The dried, powdery super-
plague became the Soviet weapon of choice (20 tons in stock at all times)
and was loaded on various munitions. The use of BW had been integrated
into Soviet special war plans for a range of tactical operations where they
would have been delivered using spray tanks and cluster bombs and
strategic operations where intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and
strategic bombers would have carried plague, anthrax, or smallpox.10
Pasechnik also detailed work on perfecting other new strains of
bacteria and viruses that would aerosolize well for use in weapons.11
After 30 years of experimentation, Soviet scientists had solved the
problems of fragile microbe survival in major atmospheric pressure
changes and temperature extremes during missile flight by fitting BW
rockets with astronaut cabin-like protective systems. They solved the
“destruction on explosion” problem by selecting the hardiest strains and
calculating the required redundant quantity needed based on explosive
testing done in Biopreparat and other BW research labs.
In summary, Pasechnik had disclosed that the Soviets (1) had
genetically engineered bacteria and viruses, (2) weaponized the microbes in
a powder form, (3) loaded them onto various munitions, and (4) integrated
BW into their doctrine and had specific plans for use of BW.12

“Temple Fortune”

In the spring of 1992, a lower-level bench scientist who had worked

on plague research in Pasechnik’s lab also defected to the United
Kingdom.13 He has remained undercover and is referred to by code-name
“Temple Fortune.” He fully corroborated Pasechnik’s previous account,
and then updated the British on Soviet BW work in the 30-month interval
from Pasechnik’s departure to that of “Temple Fortune.” President
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 5

Mikhail Gorbachev had ordered the termination of biological offensive

programs in 1990, and despite the fact that President Boris Yeltsen had
also announced (by televised address to the Russian people and in a
personal commitment to President Bush) termination of the program,
research on new forms of plague had secretly continued.14
“Temple Fortune” stated that, in addition to being even more resistant
to multiple antibiotics, the improved super-plague would be non-virulent
in its stored form, but could be easily converted into a deadly antibiotic-
resistant form when needed for weaponization.15 The genes that cause
plague virulence are located on a plasmid. What he was describing was a
binary biological weapon, where benign bacterial plague cells would be
mixed with virulence-enhancing plasmids immediately before loading on a
weapon, and the transformation would take place in a small bioreactor on
the weapon itself.16

Alibekov

In late 1992, shortly after “Temple Fortune’s” defection, Dr. Kanatjan

Alibekov became the third defector from the Russian BW program.17 As
the Deputy Director (number-two man) of Biopreparat and an infectious
disease physician/epidemiologist, he was the highest ranking defector ever
from the program. (Dr. Alibekov anglicized his name and now goes by
Ken Alibek.) In 1999, Alibek published Biohazard, a first-hand detailed
account of his experiences. Alibek disclosed a virtual encyclopedia of
intimate details on Biopreparat from the top down: personnel and
facilities, history of the offensive research, medical and microbiological
discoveries, special production methods, weaponization techniques,
aerosol testing, Russian BW defensive innovations, prior deceptions and
secret plans, and the future direction of the program.18
Alibek confided that Soviet biologists in the 1960s and 1970s were
already interested in using genetics and gene manipulation to produce BW
agents. In 1973, President Leonid Brezhnev established the “Enzyme”
program to modernize the BW program and develop genetically altered
pathogens.19 Early in his career, Alibek had been in charge of developing
Biopreparat’s first vaccine-resistant tularemia bomblet.20 Later, by 1986,
his team had also tripled the potency of the “battle strain” of anthrax
6 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

(Strain 836).21 He was the first to weaponize glanders, and supervised the
first Soviet tests with the Marburg virus (an Ebola-like virus).22
Alibek disclosed that by 1992 the Russians possessed a grand total of
fifty-two different biological agents or combination of agents, including
deadly Marburg, Ebola, and smallpox viruses, that could be weaponized.
The most infectious and easiest to manufacture and transport microbes
were labeled “battle strains.”23 The favorite “battle strains” were anthrax
(Strain 836), Pasechnik’s super-plague, and a special Russian strain of
tularemia (Schu-4). By 1991, Alibek stated that Russian scientists had
“improved” all three of these so that they could overcome all immune
systems and current medical treatments.24 In May 1998, Alibek testified
before the U.S. Congress:

It is important to note that, in the Soviet’s view, the best

biological agents were those for which there was no
prevention and no cure. For those agents for which
vaccines or treatment existed – such as plague, which can
be treated with antibiotics – antibiotic-resistant or
immunosuppressive variants were to be developed.25

Although Biopreparat had worked with a highly virulent, rapidly

infectious “battle strain” of smallpox (India-1) since 1959, they began
research in 1987 to develop an even more virulent smallpox weapon, and
tested it in 1990.26
In his book Biohazard, Alibek wrote about using plasmids to increase
virulence or antibiotic resistance in bacteria.27 This corroborated
Pasechnik’s and “Temple Fortune’s” prior statements. He also discussed
transfer of a gene for myelin toxin to Yersinia pestis (plague bacteria),
however this agent was reportedly not yet weaponized. He said that a new
Moscow-based company named Bioeffekt Ltd. had offered, by mail order,
three strains of tularemia produced by “technology unknown outside
Russia” (i.e., genetically engineered strains).
Most astounding of all, Alibek revealed that genetic engineering
research was underway to create entirely new life forms.28 The goal of
hybrid “chimera” viruses was to insert genes from one virus into another
to create an even more lethal virus. Alibek stated that the Russians had
created the first chimera virus from inserting DNA from Venezuelan
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 7

equine encephalitis (VEE) virus into vaccinia virus (genetic structure

almost identical to the smallpox virus).29 Chimeras, of VEE, Ebola, and
Marburg genes inserted into the actual smallpox virus, were in the
research phase when he left in 1991.
Near the end of his book, Alibek talks about how biotechnical
knowledge was shared with other countries.30 For many years the
Russians taught courses in “genetic engineering and molecular biology for
scientists from Eastern Europe, Cuba, Libya, India, Iran, Iraq, and other
countries.” In fact, Cuba had set up a pharmaceutical company near
Havana and was producing interferon from a genetically altered bacteria
that contained an inserted plasmid.

Yeltsen and Sverdlovsk

In 1979, an accidental release of anthrax spores from the BW facility

at Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinberg, Russia) killed at least 66 people. In
1998, a DNA sequencing study done on preserved samples from eleven
victims revealed the simultaneous presence of up to four distinct genetic
variants of Bacillus anthracis. These findings indicate that at least some
level of engineering of military anthrax had taken place, because only one
strain would likely be found after a natural outbreak.31 The Soviet Union
at the time denied the existence of a military program and the official in
charge of the province where the incident occurred was none other than
Boris Yeltsen.
More than a decade later, after becoming President of Russia, Boris
Yeltsen visited Britain in 1992. In a public speech, discussing biological
warfare research, he stated that the Russians “had undertaken research on
the influence of various substances on human genes.” Yeltsen’s
statements substantiated the existence of a previous Soviet genetic
engineering research program.32 Yeltsen, as Russia’s President, later
issued a public decree outlawing the entire Russian BW research and
production program.

Scientific Reports

In 1995, Russian scientists presented a study at a conference in

Britain that they later published in the British medical journal Vaccine in
8 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

December 1997.33 They reported that they had successfully transferred

genes from Bacillus cereus into Bacillus anthracis cultures, making the
anthrax resistant to Russian anthrax vaccine (at least in hamsters). This
raised the obvious question about effectiveness of the American anthrax
vaccine. American agencies sought to obtain a sample of the more potent
Russian anthrax strain.34 Unable to do so, in early 2001 the Pentagon
made plans to duplicate the Russian work and genetically engineer its own
modified strain for biodefense purposes.35

Implications

Biological-type weapons have been used many times in history.

Humanity’s ancient enemies are, after all, microbes.36 What is new today
is the tailored development of more contagious and lethal pathogens and
the increasing number of states and terrorist groups that may have access
to the knowledge or cultures of them.33 The above accounts from
Russians knowledgeable about their BW programs indicate active research
and success in genetic engineering, chimera agents, and binary biologicals.
From public record accounts, we know that the former Soviet Union
(FSU) used genetic engineering techniques in their massive offensive BW
program.38
Because the FSU classified its offensive BW program as “Special
Importance” (higher than Top Secret), it is clear that they considered BW
missiles to be as valuable as their nuclear missiles.39 Because of the
protective military secrecy, it is plausible that even many top ranking
Soviet/Russian officials did not know the full extent and details of the
offensive program nor have control over it.40 This Mafia-like secrecy may
explain Gorbachev’s and Yeltsen’s confusions, hesitancies, and
contradictions when talking to the West about treaty violations.41
Incredibly, Pasechnik claimed that he had never been told about the
existence of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and learned of
it first from his British debriefers.42 Indeed, despite Yeltsen’s decree to
dismantle the FSU’s offensive BW program, many intelligence analysts
suspect that it is still viable, hidden deep in the military structure which is
reluctant to surrender their BW secrets.43
Major General John Parker, Commanding General, U. S. Army
Medical Research and Materiel Command, acknowledged that
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 9

“bioterrorists could just re-engineer diseases such as anthrax to negate the

effect of existing vaccines.”44 Some western intelligence experts believe a
Russian genetic engineering program such as Alibek described is still in
its infancy.45 The pace of recent discoveries in molecular biology makes it
imperative to contemplate new BW threats.46 Advances in “the dark side”
of biotechnology predict a future of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, vaccine-
resistant viruses, and the creation of completely new pathogens
(chimeras).47 The expertise and technology to create lethal new strains of
viruses and bacteria are available at most major universities around the
world. Some American scientists predict that we have some 20 years
before genetic engineering will effectively make current biological
defenses completely ineffective and obsolete against BW attacks. Science
fiction may become science fact within two decades.48
The threat of a war with ICBM exchange with Russia has been
greatly reduced in recent years. However, as nuclear and BW missiles
were decommissioned and Biopreparat and portions of the rest of the BW
scientific infrastructure were dismantled, many Russian scientists were
suddenly unemployed. There is concern that knowledge of genetic
engineering, or even cultures of highly infectious agents (sold, stolen, or
smuggled), may have been transmitted to “nations of concern” or terrorist
organizations. If true, such leaks, combined with the ease of flow of
technology and information around the world, would result in a proliferation
of capability that makes biological weapons use increasingly likely in major
theater wars, smaller scale contingencies, and terrorist events.49
A biological weapon consists of both the biological agent and its
means of delivery. Growing microbes is easier than their weaponization
or dissemination. As Larry Johnson, former deputy director of the State
Department’s Office of Counter-Terrorism, said, “producing these
weapons requires infrastructure and expertise more sophisticated than a
lab coat and a garage.”50 However, terrorists may attempt to recruit
former biological weapons researchers to obtain information on
weaponization techniques. Well-funded terrorist organizations might be
able to buy the Russian scientists they need. A small subset of terrorist
groups is likely to possess the technical know-how needed to carry out an
effective biological attack.51 Unless they are able to buy knowledge or
microbe cultures from large programs such as the former Soviet BW
10 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

program, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that small terrorist units

would have access to or produce genetically engineered biologicals.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 11

III. Genetic Engineering, Bioterrorism and Biowarfare

Revolutions in Medicine and Military Affairs

The techniques of genetic engineering began to be developed in the

1970s.52 In the 1980s, genetic engineering was already a global
multibillion-dollar industry.53 In the last decade of the 20th century, the
knowledge of molecular biology increased exponentially. The recent
revolution in molecular biology may have incidentally unleashed a new
threat to mankind, in the form of genetically engineered pathogens, which
could be used to develop many new offensive biological weapons. The
same biotechnology that has promised to save lives by treatment of many
human diseases, also has a dark side that could be misused for the
development of deadly bioweapons. The future of this “black biology” is
the subject of the remainder of this paper.
The revolution in molecular biology and biotechnology can be
considered as a potential Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). Andrew
F. Krepinevich noted 10 RMAs in the history of warfare.54 Four elements
are required for a RMA: technological advancement, incorporation of this
new technology into military systems, military operational innovation, and
organizational adaptation in a way that fundamentally alters the character
and conduct of conflict. The Gulf War has been seen as introducing the
space/information warfare RMA. From the technological advances in
biotechnology, biowarfare with genetically engineered pathogens may
constitute a future such RMA. The Russians have integrated BW into
their doctrine, but fortunately there is no present evidence that they have
had any occasion to practice it in the past few decades.
Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper, USMC (Ret.), former
commanding general, Marine Corps Combat Development Command,
asserts that we are at the front end of strategic change and that there are
currently multiple RMAs in progress.55 It is difficult to assess their impact
and meaning while they are still works in progress. Indeed, only time can
prove that a technological innovation will contribute to a RMA. It may
take 20 or 30 years until we fully understand their significance. It is
currently believed by some that the next true major threats to our national
security are in information and biological warfare.56 We are arguably
farther along in the information warfare RMA than a biowarfare RMA.
12 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

Ironically, genetic engineering is becoming routine and commonplace

while weaponization of biologicals is currently a less developed art.
However, the recent spate of anthrax-laced letters sent through the mail
communicates the message that terrorists can be very creative in their
delivery methods.57
Whether or not biotechnology contributes to a future RMA, it
certainly is revolutionizing medicine. The human genome has been
sequenced. Gene therapy, which will allow the replacement or repair of
faulty genes, promises to be the Holy Grail of modern medicine.58 The
techniques of molecular genetics, genome sequencing, and gene splicing
therapy have dual-use potential. Paradoxically, the same biotechnology
for developing a new drug or new vaccine may be used to develop more
virulent bioweapons. The same science that can be used to save lives may
also used to take lives. The rise of biotechnology knowledge presently
parallels an increase in the willingness of terrorists to inflict mass
casualties and increased devastation.59 Following the historical pattern of
interaction between warfare and disease, these two relatively new
phenomena of unprecedented biotechnology and terrorists willing to inflict
mass casualties will very likely intersect in history. The anthrax attacks in
the United States following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on
the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon likely are
previews of coming events.

Emerging Infectious Diseases

Richard Preston’s 1997 novel The Cobra Event was a fictional

scenario of bioterrorism with a genetically engineered supervirus.60
President Clinton’s reading of this novel sensitized him to the bioterrorist
threat. He looked more deeply into the BW/BT threat and subsequently
issued two Presidential Decision Directives to address national security
deficiencies related to biological and chemical terrorism and warfare.61 In
the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, and the multiple anthrax-tainted letters subsequently
sent to national legislators, the Governor of New York, and news media
offices, President Bush established the Homeland Security Council to
coordinate a national effort of some 40 diverse agencies and organizations
that were already involved in homeland security.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 13

Because we do not know what new diseases will arise, we must

always be prepared for the unexpected.62 The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta is the nation’s lead agency for disease
epidemics and tracks naturally occurring emerging infectious diseases
worldwide. The CDC has traveled all over the world and investigated
outbreaks of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, Marburg virus, hantavirus, and
other emerging diseases.63 These were challenging natural outbreaks of
pathogens that had not been previously known to man. An outbreak of a
biologically engineered pathogen might create a similar situation and may
have an even greater disease potential (contagion and mortality) than
recently discovered naturally emerging diseases. The epidemiological
investigations of these emerging infectious diseases and other outbreaks
serve as templates for responses to future biowarfare and bioterrorist
events.

Natural versus Biologically Engineered Pathogens

In late 2001, anthrax spores in letters mailed through the U.S. Postal
Service resulted in more terror than actual morbidity. In the three months
following the anthrax letter attacks, five people died of inhalational
anthrax and a total of 18 others had contracted some form of the disease.64
Over 50,000 people took broad-spectrum antibiotics, and many more
people purchased antibiotics for future prophylaxis. “Anthrax anxiety”
was reported on the nightly news. Hundreds of thousands of the “worried
well” deluged the medical care system.
Yet, as bad as anthrax-by-mail was, an outbreak of a biologically
engineered pathogen could be potentially even more devastating.
Although highly lethal, the anthrax of September 2001 was determined to
be a well-known strain and it was not contagious (spread from person to
person). Although anthrax spores are highly stable and can remain viable
for years, compared to other pathogens a relatively large number of
organisms is required to cause illness.65 These facts may explain why
investigators found traces of anthrax spores in many office buildings and
post offices, but only a few people actually contracted the disease.
Furthermore, if evidence of an anthrax attack is determined (as was the
case just after September 11), people can be screened for exposure and/or
14 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

treated with antibiotics that are highly effective if taken before symptoms
begin. There is also an FDA-approved vaccine for anthrax.
Genetically engineered pathogens would likely prove to be a more
difficult challenge than the 2001 anthrax attacks. Most likely they would
be novel in characteristics with either higher transmissivity,
communicability, or antibiotic resistance. Such “tailoring” of classical
pathogens could make them harder to detect, diagnose, and treat. In
effect, they would be more militarily useful.66 Obviously, a vaccine would
not be available for a novel pathogen. Biological warfare expert Steven
Block outlines other qualitative differences and attributes possibly
expected from genetically engineered pathogens. They could be made
safer to handle, easier to distribute, capable of ethnic specificity, or be
made to cause higher morbidity or mortality rates.67
The entire DNA sequence of the smallpox genome is known, and
some scientists fear that it has already been genetically manipulated.68
Although the only authorized laboratories in the world for smallpox are
the CDC in Atlanta and the Russian State Research Center for Virology
and Biotechnology in Koltsovo, it is believed that cultures may exist
elsewhere in the FSU and possibly have been transferred to other nations
of concern or to non-state organizations.69 Ken Alibek described in his
book Biohazard that the FSU was working on genetic modifications of
smallpox in 1992.70 Because it was eradicated from the world’s
population in 1980, any release of even the original form of the disease
would affect millions of people and constitute an epidemic of worldwide
concern. Certainly, a biologically “improved” strain of smallpox would be
ominous.

Offensive Biological Weapons Capabilities

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has identified countries that

maintain various levels of offensive biological warfare capabilities or
research facilities. This list includes Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North
Korea, Syria, Libya, India, and Pakistan. The Henry L. Stimson Center
also lists Egypt, Israel, and Taiwan as countries of “proliferation
concern.”71 Also, the Al Qaeda network reportedly sought to buy
biological agents.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 15

Most developed nations maintain some level of defensive capability

against biological warfare and bioterrorism. This typically includes
deployment military mission-oriented protective posture (MOPP) gear and
civilian hazardous material (HAZMAT) responder “space suits.” Also
important are vaccines and antibiotics stockpiled against the BW/BT
threats. The United States Department of Defense maintains a defensive
capability. In 1969, President Nixon issued an executive order to
unilaterally and unconditionally renounce biological weapons. Our
program was terminated and stockpiles were destroyed.72 The closure of
our offensive program has had a serious and limiting effect on our ability to
develop medical defensive measures, such as our capability to develop
appropriate vaccines, antibiotics, and other treatments.73

Biowar and Bioterrorism

As our adversaries look for “asymmetric”74 advantages, biological

weapons are always a consideration. Bellicose national leaders and terrorists,
allured by the potentially deadly power of biological weapons, persevere in
seeking to acquire them. Yet, curiously, when biological weapons have been
employed in battle, they have proven relatively ineffectual. They have been
undependable and uncontrollable.75 Because they have been difficult to
deploy reliably, their military value has been marginal.76 Stabilizing
biological agents and deploying them, either overtly with sophisticated
weaponry or covertly without endangering the perpetrator or friendly forces,77
requires expertise not widely held. Possibly, with the capabilities of
biological engineering and a new generation of weapons, this may change.
Nation-state and nonstate actors obviously have differing capabilities,
requirements, and expectations for biological weapons. Whereas military
troops often train to operate in chemical and biological environments,
vulnerable civilian populations do not have either the protective equipment or
defensive training for a biological attack, and would therefore be the most
likely target in a bioterrorist attack. It is increasingly likely that nonstate
terrorists will use biological attacks as appears to be the case of the anthrax
mail attacks following the September 11th attacks on the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center towers.78
In the event of an attack with a genetically engineered pathogen, it would
likely require some time to sort out whether we were confronting simply a
16 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

naturally occurring event or one triggered by those with a sinister motive.79

Identification of the cause may be delayed. Initially, there may not be a high
index of suspicion. The disease may not be recognizable if it takes the initial
form of a familiar complex of symptoms. Most physicians have never seen
patients with anthrax or smallpox, and few have had training to diagnose the
most likely bioterrorism pathogens. For example, one of the U.S. postal
workers who died of anthrax in late 2001 was diagnosed as having a harmless
viral syndrome and released from a physician’s care. In the initial stages of
an investigation, it might be difficult to determine if the outbreak is a
naturally occurring event, an act of terrorism, or an act of war. For example,
the first inhalational anthrax victim in Florida in late 2001 was initially
thought to have been infected from natural exposure because he was an
outdoorsman. It may be difficult for investigators to determine the source of
the pathogen or the mechanism of exposure. It took some time before
anthrax spores from letters were connected to the first anthrax cases. At the
time of this writing, the perpetrator of the events in the United States and the
source of the anthrax remain unknown.
A terrorist attack with a biologically engineered agent may unfold unlike
any previous event. The pathogen may be released clandestinely so there will
be a delay between exposure and onset of symptoms. Days to weeks later,
when people do develop symptoms, they could immediately start spreading
contagious diseases. By that time, many people will likely be hundreds of
miles away from where they were originally exposed, possibly at multiple
international sites. Acutely ill victims may present themselves in large
numbers to emergency rooms and other medical treatment facilities. In this
scenario, medical professionals would be “on the front lines” of the attack. If
the pathogen was highly contagious, medics would then become secondarily
infected. Unsuspecting hospitals would become contaminated and soon
overwhelmed. This would necessitate the quarantine of a large number of
people, with the situation exacerbated by the declining numbers of medical
care givers. The media would contribute to public anxiety. Civil disorder
and chaos may ensue. We have very little experience in coping with such an
epidemic. Advanced warning of an impending specific bioterrorist incident,
especially with a genetically engineered BW agent, will be extremely rare—
similar to an emerging disease outbreak. Unless we happen to have excellent
intelligence, we can only be prepared to respond after the fact.80
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 17

IV. Six Paths to Enhance Biothreats

At about the same time The Cobra Event became popular in 1997, the
United States Department of Defense released Proliferation: Threat and
Response, which identified trends in biological warfare capabilities.
These included the increasing use of genetically engineered vectors and
the growing understanding of both infectious disease mechanisms and the
immune defense system.81 An annex to Proliferation: Threat and
Response stated “the current level of sophistication of BW is
comparatively low, but there is enormous potential—based on advances in
modern molecular biology, fermentation, and drug delivery technology—
for making sophisticated weapons.82 The most recent Report of the
Quadrennial Defense Review (September 2001) also recognizes that “the
biotechnology revolution holds the potential for increasing threats of
biological warfare.”83
Also in 1997, a group of academic scientists met to discuss “the threat
posed by the development and use of biological agents.” This JASON84
Group provides technical advice to the U.S. government and “facilitates
the contributions of scientists to problems of national security and public
benefit.” Their meeting concentrated on the near-term future threat of
biological warfare, specifically on genetically engineered pathogens and
weapons.
The JASON Group that met in 1997 grouped potential genetically
engineered pathogens into six broad groups of potential futuristic threats.85

• Binary biological weapons

• Designer genes
• Gene therapy as a weapon
• Stealth viruses
• Host-swapping diseases
• Designer diseases

The biotechnology exists today for some of these possibilities.

Indeed, some genetically engineered agents may have already been
produced and stockpiled.
18 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

1) Binary Biological Weapons:86 Analogous to a binary chemical

weapon, this is a two-component system consisting of innocuous parts that
are mixed immediately prior to use to form the pathogen. This process
occurs frequently in nature. Many pathogenic bacteria contain multiple
plasmids (small circular extrachromosomal DNA fragments) that code for
virulence or other special functions. The virulence of anthrax, plague,
dysentery, and other diseases is enhanced by these plasmids. What occurs
naturally in nature can be artificially conducted with basic biotechnology
techniques in the laboratory. Virulent plasmids can be transferred among
different kinds of bacteria and often across species barriers.
To produce a binary biological weapon, a host bacteria and a virulent
plasmid could be independently isolated and produced in the required
quantities. Just before the bioweapon was deployed, the two components
would be mixed together. The transformation of the host organism back
into a pathogen could conceivably take place after a weapon is triggered
and during transport/flight. “Temple Fortune” indicated that scientists in
the FSU had mastered this technique.

2) Designer Genes:87 The Human Genome Project has decoded the

alphabet of life and provided a human molecular blueprint.88 Likewise,
the complete genome sequences are now known for 599 viruses, 205
naturally occurring plasmids, 31 bacteria, one fungus, two animals, and
one plant.89 Many of these genomes have been published in unclassified
journals and on the internet. To the bioweaponeer these are essentially
blueprints that would enable him to make microorganisms more harmful.90
Now that the codes are known, it seems only a matter of time until
microbiologists develop synthetic genes, synthetic viruses, or even
complete new organisms. Some of these could be specifically produced
for biological warfare or terrorism purposes.
Perhaps the most obvious way to increase the effectiveness of any
biological warfare pathogen is to render it resistant to antibiotics or
antiviral agents. Some bacteria naturally develop resistance to antibiotics
fairly quickly. Many antibiotic resistance genes have been identified. The
best known of these is the gene that codes for beta-lactamase, the enzyme
that defeats the action of penicillin. Such genes could be activated or
introduced into other pathogens.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 19

Entire viruses may similarly be created, analogous to the natural

mutation of the influenza virus. A new strain of influenza could be
created by induced hybridization of viral strains, simply swapping out
variant or synthetic genes. Slightly altering a common virus like influenza
to make it deadlier might be easier than manipulating more rare or
biologically complicated pathogens.
For a bioweaponeer, the databases of increasing numbers of microbial
genomes provide a virtual “parts list” of potentially useful genes for a
genetic “erector set” to design and produce a new organism. It is possible
to pick and choose the most lethal characteristics.91 Some think it may be
possible to create an entirely new organism from scratch. Some animal
viruses are so small that their entire genome could be stitched together, at
least in principle, from machine-synthesized fragments using current
technology. Mycoplasma, an organism that causes pneumonia in humans,
has the smallest known bacterial genome.92 Genetic analyses of strains of
mycoplasma indicate that only 265 to 350 genes are essential under
laboratory growth conditions. Thus, it may be possible to create an
entirely synthetic “minimal genome”93 organism in the near future. If a
streamlined cell of this type were available, it would be an attractive
template to build a bioweapon.94
As stated previously about viruses, although it may be possible to
create life artificially from a set of component parts, this would probably
be beyond the sophistication of most bioterrorists. It would be extremely
difficult to engineer all of the desired “attributes” into a single pathogen
and still have an organism that transmitted effectively and predictably. It
would be much more likely that an existing pathogen would be subtly
genetically modified to be more difficult to detect, more virulent, or more
resistant to drugs, all within the capabilities of today’s biotechnology.95

3) Gene Therapy as a Weapon:96 Gene therapy will revolutionize

the treatment of human genetic diseases. The goal is to effect a permanent
change in the genetic composition of a person by repairing or replacing a
faulty gene. Genes have already been spliced into bacteria to produce
“human” insulin in large quantities.97 The eventual goal is to splice a
gene that codes for the production of insulin into human pancreatic tissue
to cure diabetes. Similar research is progressing on adding in the missing
20 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

gene to prevent the symptoms of cystic fibrosis. However, the same

technology could be subverted to insert pathogenic genes.
There are two general classes of gene therapy: germ-cell line
(reproductive) and somatic cell line (therapeutic). Changes in DNA in
germ cells would be inherited by future generations. Changes in DNA of
somatic cells would affect only the individual and could not be passed on
to descendants. Manipulation of somatic cells is subject to less ethical
scrutiny than manipulation of germ cells.
This concept has already been used to alter the immunity of animals.
The vaccinia virus (a poxvirus used to make immunization against
smallpox) has been used as a vector to insert genes in mammalian cells.
This genetically engineered virus has been used successfully to produce an
oral vaccine to prevent rabies in wildlife.
Research for similar gene splicing in humans continues for possible
vectors to carry the replacement genes to their targets.98 As has been done
for animals, there is potential for human “vaccination” against certain
diseases, or as a targeted delivery capability for therapeutic drugs or
cytotoxic effects.99
One class of experimental vectors is the retroviruses which
permanently integrate themselves into human chromosomes.100 HIV,
which causes AIDS, is a retrovirus. So it should not be hard to understand
that gene therapy might have sinister capability.
A viral vector has already produced a lethal strain of mousepox
virus.101 The genetically manipulated virus completely suppressed the
cell-mediated response (the arm of the immune system that combats viral
infections) of the lab mice.102 Even mice previously vaccinated against the
natural mousepox virus died within days of exposure to the super virus.
Mousepox (which does not infect humans) and smallpox are related
viruses. If smallpox were to be similarly genetically manipulated, our
current vaccine may not protect against it. These vectors are not yet very
efficient in introducing genes into tissue cells. But if a medical technique
is perfected, similar vectors might eventually be used to insert harmful
genes into an unsuspecting population.103
Techniques for cloning tissues and embryos continue to advance.
Reproductive (germ-cell) cloning aims to implant a cloned embryo into a
woman’s uterus leading to the birth of a cloned baby. Therapeutic
(somatic cell) cloning aims to use genes from a person’s own cells to
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 21

generate healthy tissue to treat a disease. For example, such cloning could
be used to grow pancreatic cells to produce insulin to treat diabetes, or to
grow nerve cells to repair damaged spinal cords.104
Already sheep, mice, swine, and cattle have been cloned. However,
success (defined as births of live animals) rates are low.105 Initial cloning
work with human embryos to produce omnipotent stem cells has been
reported.106 Theoretically, the stem cells could in turn grow into virtually
any cell type and serve as replacement tissue in diseases like diabetes.107
Researchers have also used a virus to insert a jellyfish gene into a rhesus
monkey egg and produced the first genetically altered primate.108 The use
of embryos and germ cells has raised many ethical questions.

4) Stealth Viruses:109 The concept of a stealth virus is a cryptic viral

infection that covertly enters human cells (genomes) and then remains
dormant for an extended time. However, a signal by an external stimulus
could later trigger the virus to activate and cause disease. This
mechanism, in fact, occurs fairly commonly in nature. For example, many
humans carry herpes virus which can activate to cause oral or genital
lesions. Similarly, varicella virus will sometimes reactivate in the form of
herpes zoster (shingles) in some people who had chicken pox earlier in
life. However, the vast majority of viruses do not cause disease.
As a biological weapon, a stealth virus could clandestinely infect the
genome of a population. Later, the virus could be activated in the targeted
population, or a threat of activation could be used as blackmail.
Oncogenes are segments of DNA that, when switched on, can initiate
wild cellular growth and misbehavior—the hallmarks of cancer. Some
viruses have segments of DNA that can mimic oncogenes and directly, or
perhaps through bioregulators or host genes, cause cancer. These changes
may take years for clinical effect, but the concept may still be considered
by bioterrorists.110

5) Host-Swapping Diseases:111 As previously stated, the vast

majority of viruses do not cause disease. In nature, animal viruses tend to
have narrow, well-defined host ranges. Unlike bacteria, viruses often
infect only one or just a few species. When a virus has a primary reservoir
in an animal species, but is transmissible to humans, it is called a zoonotic
disease. Animal viruses tend to have a natural animal reservoir where
22 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

they reside and cause little or no damage. Examples of reservoirs include

birds for the West Nile Virus, water fowl for Eastern equine encephalitis
and rodents for hantavirus. The bat is thought to be the reservoir for Ebola
virus, and the chimpanzee is thought to have been the original reservoir
for the HIV virus that causes AIDS. When viruses “jump species” they
may occasionally cause significant disease. These examples illustrate that
manageable infectious agents can be transformed naturally into organisms
with markedly increased virulence.112
When this happens naturally, the process results in an emerging
disease. If it were to be induced by man, it would be bioterrorism. In the
laboratory of inspired, determined and well-funded bioterrorists, an animal
virus may be genetically modified and developed specifically to infect
human populations. Emerging diseases could have serious implications
for biological warfare or terrorism applications.

6) Designer Diseases:113 Our understanding of cellular and

molecular biology has advanced nearly to the point where it might be
possible to propose the symptoms of a hypothetical disease and then
design or create the pathogen to produce the desired disease complex.
Designer diseases may work by turning off the immune system, by
inducing specific cells to multiply and divide rapidly (like cancer), or
possibly by causing the opposite effect, such as initiating programmed cell
death (apotosis). This futuristic biotechnology would clearly indicate an
order-of-magnitude advancement in offensive biological warfare or
terrorism capability.114
The concepts and mechanisms of the six classes of biological
innovations that could be weaponized, as outlined by the JASON Group
and discussed above, have some overlap. These classes were meant to
identify a spectrum of conceivable bioterrorist threats based on current or
near-future biotechnological capabilities. They were not meant to be all-
inclusive or mutually exclusive of possibilities.115
Another authority on biological warfare, Malcolm Dando asserts that
benign microorganisms might be genetically engineered to produce BW
toxins, bioregulator compounds, or venoms.116 Pathogens may also be
genetically manipulated to enhance their aerosol or environmental
stability, or defeat current identification, detection, and diagnostic
capabilities.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 23

V. Six Ways Science Can Improve Biodefense

Biological warfare and bioterrorism are multifactorial problems that

will require multifactorial solutions. We need our best critical thinkers
and biological researchers to solve this constantly evolving problem.
Fortunately, the same advances in genomic biotechnologies that can be
used to create bioweapons can also be used to set up countermeasures
against them. There are six areas where biotechnology will likely make
significant contributions:

• Understanding the human genome

• Boosting the immune system
• Understanding viral and bacterial genomes
• Bio-agent detection and identification equipment
• New vaccines
• New antibiotics and antiviral drugs

1) Understanding the human genome.117 The Human Genome

Project will have a profound influence on the pace of molecular biology
research and help solve the most mysterious and complex of life’s
processes. New biotechnology should allow the analysis of the full
cascade of events that occur in a human cell following the infection with a
pathogen or the uptake of a toxin molecule. Circumstances that cause
individual susceptibility to infectious diseases will become clear.
Currently, the functions of nearly half of all human genes are unknown.
Functional genomics studies should elucidate these unknowns and enable
design of possible new strategies for prevention and treatment in the form
of vaccines and anti-microbial drugs.
There have been reports of biological agents to target specific ethnic
groups.118 Although “biological ethnic cleansing” is a theoretical
possibility, most experts are skeptical of this potential.119 Analysis of the
human genome sequence to date has failed to reveal any polymorphisms120
that can be used to absolutely define racial groups. Several studies have
shown that genetic variation in human populations is low relative to other
species and most diversity exists within, rather than between, ethnic groups.
24 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

2) Boosting the immune system.121 The complete sequencing of the

human genome also provides a new starting point for better understanding
of, and potential manipulation of, the human immune system. This has a
tremendous potential against biological warfare.
After years of effort in the FSU to genetically engineer pathogens for
biological warfare, Dr. Ken Alibek is now working to protect against the
use of biological agents. He is researching mechanisms to boost the
immune system to defend the body against infectious diseases. One of his
initial projects is conducting cellular research that could lead to protection
against anthrax. Similar immunological research in other labs has great
promise to heighten the general human immune response to microbial
attack in an effort to move beyond the “one bug-one drug” historical
approach.

3) Understanding viral and bacterial genomes.122 The genome

projects for various microorganisms will explain why pathogens have the
characteristics of virulence or drug resistance. A “minimal genome” was
discussed previously in this paper. Creating a minimal genome would be
an important milestone in genetic engineering as it would prove the
capability to create organisms simply from the blueprint of their genomes.
This research may provide insight into the very origins of life, bacterial
evolution, and understanding the cellular processes of more complex life
forms.
Bacteria may also be modified to produce bioregulators against
pathogens. For example, E. coli has been genetically engineered to
produce commercial quantities of interferon,123 a natural protein that has
antiviral activity against a variety of viruses. Xoma Corporation has
patented a bactericidal/permeability-increasing (BPI) protein made from
recombinant DNA (genes inserted into DNA sequences) technology that
reverses the resistance of some bacteria to some widely used antibiotics.
The search is on for other bioactive proteins that can affect the human
response to infections.

4) Rapid/accurate bio-agent detection and identification

techniques and equipment.124 Biotechnologists need to continually
develop more definitive, rapid, and automated detection equipment,
regardless of whether or not bacteria have been genetically engineered.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 25

The capability to compare genomes using DNA assays is already possible.

It is reasonable to contemplate a DNA microchip that could identify the
most important human pathogens by deciphering bacterial and viral
genomes. This detector could provide information on the full genetic
complement of any BW agent even if it contained genes or plasmids from
other species, had unusual virulence or antibiotic-resistance properties, or
was a synthetic organism built from component genes. The ability to
quickly identify and characterize a potential BW agent with a single test
will greatly reduce the delays in current detection methods.
Geneticists deciphered the genome of the anthrax bacteria contained
in the terrorist letters after September 11, 2001. DNA tests confirmed that
the anthrax in every letter was the Ames strain.125 Forensic scientists also
looked for human DNA that might be inside the letters. The information
was used for both the criminal investigation (gene clues that might help
track back to the perpetrator or origin of the culture) and for further
medical research for diagnosis and treatment.126 Gene sequencing
techniques (molecular fingerprinting) for anthrax and other microbes will
undoubtedly contribute to future forensics and diagnostics.

5) New vaccines.127 Vaccines stimulate humoral128 immunity, the

production of specific antibodies for specific pathogens. The availability
of many pathogen genome sequences has already led to development
advances in new vaccines for some meningitis and pneumonia bacteria.
Researchers have genetically engineered viruses in an attempt to create
novel vaccines that would stimulate immunity against multiple diseases
with a single treatment.129 A California laboratory, Maxygen, is
combining proteins from related pathogens in hope of developing vaccines
that could provide broad protection.130 Several other laboratories also
have initiated genome-enabled efforts investigating ways to boost cell-
mediated immunity against those pathogens for which it might be most
effective. As yet, this approach has not been as successful as the
development of vaccines but, as a result of genome sequencing, having
knowledge of all available antigens has been enormously valuable.

6) New antibiotics and antiviral drugs.131 Advances in microbial

genomics hold great promise in the design of new anti-microbial drugs.
Current antibiotics target three processes in bacterial cells: DNA
26 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

synthesis, protein synthesis, and cell-wall synthesis. From deciphered

genome information, any other protein essential for cell viability is a
possible target for a new class of antibiotics. Although the first such
antibiotics may be “silver bullets” for a specific infectious agent, the
information gained may lead to broad-spectrum anti-microbial agents.
If the 1950s were the golden age of antibiotics, we are now in the
early years of the age of antivirals.132 With viral genomes decoded,
scientists will soon decipher how viruses cause disease, and which stage of
the disease-producing process might be vulnerable to interruption.
Insights gleaned from the human genome and viral genomes have opened
the way to development of whole new classes of antiviral drugs.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 27

VI. Conclusions

Genetically engineered pathogens constitute the “next generation” of

biological warfare agents. Evidence indicates that the Russians have
genetically engineered biological warfare agents. Ken Alibek’s original
debriefings were so shocking that some military and intelligence personnel
preferred to believe that he was exaggerating.133 As his statements about
genetic engineering and FSU capabilities began to be substantiated,
however, the reality began to sink in. Such genetic innovations obviously
enhance adversarial offensive biological warfare effectiveness and complicate
our defensive capability. Because we cannot know with certainty the
specifics of these agents (lethality, communicability, and antibiotic
resistance), it is imperative that we prepare for the unexpected. Two quotes
come to mind. George Orwell said, “Life is a race between education and
catastrophe.” Further, Gene Kranz said, “Failure is not an option.”
Although biologically engineered weapons may currently be less of a
concern than their naturally occurring counterparts, the threat they pose can
only increase as technology develops.134 We are only in the initial stages of a
revolution in biotechnology.135 Historically, the available state-of-the-art
biotechnology has been used in offensive BW programs (i.e., FSU applied the
technology of the 1970s and ‘80s). Biotechnology is the ultimate double-
edged sword. Once knowledge is attained, there is no going back.136 As is
the case with most powerful technologies, they can be employed for good or
evil.137 We must proceed with caution when developing new life-forms.138
As new organisms are introduced into our delicate bio-equilibrium, we cannot
fully predict all potential consequences to the biosphere. The same
technology that is used to benefit mankind may paradoxically pose a threat to
our military forces and civilian populations either by accident or by sinister
forces. It is possible today to genetically engineer microorganisms for
specific positive medical and industrial purposes. It is likewise possible to
genetically engineer pathogens for biological warfare purposes. It seems
likely that such weapons will be used in our lifetimes. Inevitably, sometime,
somewhere, someone seems bound to try something with genetically
engineered pathogens.139 If they are ever released, they will pose an ominous
challenge for medical care and governmental response.
The use of biological warfare agents on the battlefield against the
United States has been restrained in recent history. There have been many
28 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

declarations and conventions to attempt to define international norms and to

regulate the use of biological weapons. In the end, the law of war is
somewhat of an oxymoron.140 Several signatories of the 1972 BWC,
including Iraq and the former Soviet Union, have participated in activities
outlawed by the convention.141 These events demonstrate the
ineffectiveness of the convention as the sole means for eradicating
biological weapons and preventing further proliferation. Ultimately, the
most effective deterrent to their use has turned out to be fear of
retaliation.142 During the Gulf War, it is believed that Iraq was deterred
from using biologicals and chemicals because Saddam Hussein feared
nuclear or otherwise overwhelming retaliation.143 We cannot be sure that
future enemies will be so intimidated. Certainly, non-state terrorists actors
will not be deterred as easily. Biotechnology has made it possible to inflict
mass casualties using only small scale special operations that can evade
detection in attempt to avoid retribution. In asymmetric warfare, biological
weapons are seen as a “great equalizer.”
The probability of a terrorist use of a genetically engineered biological
agent on a given city is very low, but the consequence of such an event
would obviously be very high.144 With maximum casualties the likely goal,
metropolitan areas are at the highest risk.145 This dilemma is the challenge
of local communities, which are sensitive to the need for preparedness, but
have finite resources. Local communities must have a plan and sufficient
medical and public health resources accessible to sustain a response for up
to 24 hours. A robust federal assistance would be made available promptly,
but it would not be immediate. Currently, dozens of federal entities fiercely
compete for the missions and money associated with the unconventional
terrorism response.146 The Homeland Security Council is charged to
coordinate a more efficient network of disaster response capability.147 At
present, all military and civilian populations throughout the world are
vulnerable to a BW attack.148 We remain grossly ill-prepared to respond to
an epidemic caused by a novel genetically engineered biological agent.
The 20th century was dominated by physics, but recent breakthroughs
indicate that the next 100 years likely will be “the Biological Century.”149
There are those who say: “the First World War was chemical; the Second
World War was nuclear; and that the Third World War – God forbid – will
be biological.”150
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 29

NOTES

1. Stephen M. Block, “Living Nightmares: Biological Threats Enabled by

Molecular Biology,” in The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical
Weapons, eds. Sidney Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, and George D. Wilson (Stanford, CA:
Hoover Institution Press, 1999), 58; see also, Robert G. Webster, William J. Bean,
Owen T. Gorman, Thomas M. Chambers, and Yoshihiro Kawaoka, “Evolution and
Ecology of Influenza A Viruses,” Microbiological Reviews, March 1992, 152-179.

2. Genetic engineering is a type of molecular biotechnology that uses laboratory

techniques to isolate, manipulate, transfer, recombine, and allow expression of genes
(DNA segments) between different organisms. In biological warfare or bioterrorism,
adversaries might use genetically engineered agents that included both modified existing
microbes and possibly novel synthetic life forms created to render them more effective as
biological weapons than found in naturally occurring organisms.

3. Tom Mangold and Jeff Goldberg, Plague Wars (New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1999), 92.

4. Ken Alibek with Stephen Handelman, Biohazard (New York: Random House,
1999), 43; see also, Lester C. Caudle III, “The Biological Warfare Threat,” in Textbook of
Military Medicine: Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, eds. Frederick
R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuji, and David R. Franz (Washington D.C.: Office of the
Surgeon General, US Army, 1997), 454. Biopreparat constituted only half of the Soviet
BW program. See Alibek’s Biohazard.

5. Jonathan B. Tucker, Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and

Biological Weapons (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 4-5; and Jim A. Davis, “The
Anthrax Terror,” Aerospace Power Journal, Vol XIV, no. 4 (Winter 2000): 17.

6. Mangold and Goldberg, 182.

7. Ibid., 91-105; and Caudle, 453-4.

8. Mangold and Goldberg, 93-5.

9. Caudle, 454. Bacterial cells frequently contain extrachromosomal (located

outside the cell nucleus), autonomously replicating DNA molecules known as plasmids.
Some plasmids carry DNA sequences that can produce antibiotic resistance, virulence, or
infectivity. Plasmids can move between bacteria.

10. Mangold and Goldberg, 94-5, 164; Col John Alexander, Future War:
Non-Lethal Weapons in the Twenty-First Century (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1999),
191.
30 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

11. Mangold and Goldberg, 93-7.

12. Ibid., 91-9.

13. Ibid., 163-5.

14. Alexander, 192; Mangold and Goldberg, 158-63.

15. Ibid., 164.

16. Block, 55-6.

17. Mangold and Goldberg, 177-95; Alibek, ix-xi.

18. Mangold and Goldberg, 178-9,182; Alibek, 3-304.

19. Alibek, 40-2, 155-6; Alexander, 191. Immediately after the 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention treaty, President Brezhnev initiated the largest biological weapons
program in history.

20. Mangold and Goldberg, 186.

21. Ibid., 180. 187-8.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., 179.

24. Ibid., 180.

25. Block, 49-50.

26. Mangold and Goldberg, 181.

27. Alibek, 160-1, 163-7, 272.

28. Ibid., 259; and Mangold and Goldberg, 181.

29. Alibek, 258-61; Mangold and Goldberg, 181.

30. Alibek, 273-5.

31. Block, 50-1, Alibek, 69-86.

 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 31

32. Plague War, Frontline, PBS Home Video, Public Broadcasting Service, FROL-
1706, 1998, 60 minutes.

33. A.P. Pomerantsev, N.A. Staritsin, Yu V. Mockov, and L.I. Marinin, “Expression
of Cereolysine AB Genes in Bacillus anthracis Vaccine Strain Ensures Protection Against
Experimental Hemolytic Anthrax Infection,” Vaccine, Vol. 15, No. 17/18, 1997, 1846-
1850.

34. Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, and William Broad, Germs: Biological
Weapons and America’s Secret War (New York, Simon and Schuster, 2001), 218-220.

35. Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, and William J. Broad, “U.S. Germ Warfare
Research Pushes Treaty Limits,” New York Times, 4 September 2001, A1, A6.

36. Laurie Garrett, The Coming Plague (New York: Penguin Books, 1994), 10.

37. Peter R. Lavoy, Scott D. Sagan, and James J. Wirtz, Planning the Unthinkable:
How New Powers Will Use Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons (Ithica, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2000), 5.

38. Malcolm R. Dando, The New Biological Weapons: Threat Proliferation, and
Control (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, 2001), 11.

39. Mangold and Goldberg, 182.

40. Ibid., 110,159-61, 176.

41. Ibid., 183.

42. Ibid., 98.

43. Tucker, 5.

44. Association of Military Surgeons of the United States Newsletter, vol. 9, issue 2,
(Summer 2001), 4.

45. Mangold and Goldberg, 181; Alibek, xi.

46. Block, 41-5.

47. Lavoy et al, 4-5.

48. Mangold and Goldberg, 373.

32 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

49. Peter L. Hays, Vincent J. Jodoin, Alan R. Van Tassel, Countering the
Proliferation and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., 1998), 9; Zilinskas estimates that it may only take five years for
scientists working for “proliferant governments or subnational groups” to develop
biological weapons from the new biotechnologies. R.A. Zilinskas (Ed.) Biological
Warfare: Modern Offense and Defense (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000).

50. Tucker, 9.

51. Ibid., 8-9. Lavoy et al, 232, 257.

52. Raymond A. Zilinskas, Biological Warfare: Modern Offense and Defense

(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), 2-3.

53. Laurie Garrett, The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World of
Balance (New York: Penguin Books, 1994), 53.

54. Andrew F. Krepinevich, “Cavalry to Computer: The Pattern of Military

Revolutions,” The National Interest, No. 37, (Fall 1994), 30-42.

55. Moisés Naím, “Reinventing War,” Foreign Policy, November/December 2001,

37.

56. Claire M. Fraser and Malcolm R. Dando, “Genomics and Future Biological
Weapons: The Need for Preventive Action by the Biomedical Community,” Published
online: 22 October 20001 by Nature Publishing Group @ http//genetics.nature.com, p. 1.

57. Even crop duster aircraft and mosquito sprayer equipment are potential delivery
mechanisms for bioterrorism.

58. Block, 60.

59. Ian O. Lesser, et. al, Countering the New Terrorism (Santa Monica, CA:
RAND, 1999), 7-38. Although the total number of terrorist events worldwide has
declined in the 1990s, the percentage of terrorist events resulting in fatalities (and total
numbers of fatalities) increased; Ehud Sprinzak, “The Lone Gunman,” Foreign Policy,
November/December 2001, 72-3. According to Sprinzak, today’s “megalomaniacal
hyperterrorists” are innovators and developers. They incessantly look for original ways
to surprise and devastate the enemy. They think big, seeking to go beyond
“conventional” terrorism and, unlike most terrorists, could be willing to use weapons of
mass destruction. If the intent of terrorists is to inflict mass casualties, then biological
agents are likely to be used.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 33

60. Richard Preston, The Hot Zone (New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1994).
Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders and Michael Critchton’s The Andromeda Strain were
other popular books on pathogens.

61. Alexander, 215. PDD-62 contained major initiatives to combat

internationalterrorism. PDD-63 addressed protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure
from both physical and cyber attacks.

62. Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st Century,
(Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, reprinted August 2000), vii.

63. Garrett, 6; Block, 59. New infectious diseases are thought to emerge due to
situations where humans now live in close proximity to animals.

64. William J. Broad, “Genome Offers ‘Fingerprint’ for Anthrax: Analysis of

Bacterium Could Help Investigators,” New York Times, 28 November 2001, B-1-8.

65. Block, 45. The minimum lethal dose for inhalational anthrax (reported to
be5,000 to 10,000 spores) is high compared to some other biological agents.

66. Fraser and Dando, 2.

67. Block, 46-7.

68. Drell, 355.

69. Ibid., 355; Sheryl Gay Stolberg with Melody Peterson, “U.S. Orders Vast
Supply of Vaccine for Smallpox,” New York Times, 29 November 2001, B-8.

70. Alibek, 258-61; Block, 49. The FSU’s biological warfare program was
massive, totaling over 18 complexes and 60,000 workers. Considering that this dwarfed
the worldwide commitment to the Human Genome Project, there is significant concern
about what the FSU bioscientists were able to accomplish. Despite President Yeltsen’s
order to close the Russian BW program, biological warfare research is thought to
continue in the FSU.

71. Block, 51.

72. Caudle, 63-4.

73. Personal conversation with Bill Patrick, 6 September 2001.

74. Asymmetric warfare is the use of less technological, less expensive, and/or
more unconventional weapons, tactics and strategies. Historically, this has taken the
34 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

form of guerilla warfare, but today includes cyber war and the use of weapons of mass
destruction.

75. Zilinskas, 1-2.

76. Katherine McIntire Peters, “Behind in the Biowar,” Government

Executive,December 2001, 28.

77. Ibid., 28. The potential to inflict damage on the enemy is obvious. Less clear is
how to protect friendly troops from disease while spreading it among the enemy.

78. The Worldwide Biological Warfare Weapons Threat, 2001, 1.

79. Zilinskas, 6.

80. David Franz quoted by Peters in “Behind in the Biowar,” 30.

81. Fraser and Dando, 2.

82. Dando, 58.

83. Donald Rumsfeld, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, (Washington,

D.C.: Department of Defense, September 2001), 7.

84. Block, 39-40.

85. Ibid., 51-70.

86. Ibid., 52-56.

87. Ibid., 56-60.

88. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, “Initial Sequencing and

Analysis of the Human Genome,” Nature, Vol 409, 15 February 2001, 860-921
(http://www.tigr.org/tdb/mdb/mdbcomplete.html); see also, David Baltimore, “Our
Genome Unveiled,” Nature, Vol 409, 15 February 2001, 814-816.

89. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 860-921.

90. Rachel Nowak, “Disaster in the Making,” New Scientist, 13 January 2001, 4-5.

91. Fraser and Dando, 3.

92. Clyde A. Hutchison, et al, “Global Transposon Mutagenesis and a Minimal

Mycoplasma Genome,” Science, Vol 286, 10 December 1999, 2165-2169.
 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 35

93. A minimal genome can be defined as the smallest set of genes that allows
forreplication of the organism in a particular environment.

94. Philip Cohen, “A Terrifying Power,” New Scientist, 30 January 1999, 10.

95. Carina Dennis, “The Bugs of War,” Nature, 17 May 01, p. 232-235.

96. Block, 60-63.

97. Zilinskas, 13. The bacteria E. coli have been genetically engineered to produce
commercial quantities of valuable complex proteins, including insulin, human growth
hormone, interferon, hepatitis B surface antigens, and angiotensin.

98. Bernard Moss, “Genetically Engineered Poxviruses for Recombinant Gene

Expression, Vaccination, and Safety,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 1996, Vol. 93, 11341-11348, as abstracted in the Journal
of the American Medical Association, 6 August 1997, Vol. 278, No.5., 350.

99. Block, 60.

100. Ibid., 62.

101. Ronald J. Jackson, et. al., “Expression of Mouse Interleukin-4 by a

Recombinant Ectromelia Virus Suppresses Cytolytic Lymphocyte Responses and
Overcomes Genetic Resistance to Mousepox,” Journal of Virology, February 2001,
1205-1210.

102. Nowak, 4-5; see also, Stanley L. Robbins, Ramzi S. Cotran, and Vinay
Kumar, Pathologic Basis of Disease, Third Ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company,
1984), 158. The immune response compromises all the phenomena that result from the
specific interaction of cells of the immune system with antigens (foreign material).
Entrance of an antigen into the body can have two possible outcomes: (1) a humoral
immune response, involving the synthesis and release of antibody molecules within the
blood and extracellular fluids; or (2) cell-mediated immunity, manifested by production
of “sensitized” lymphocytes capable of interacting with antigens such as bacterial toxins
and cause neutralization of the toxin, or they can coat the antigenic surfaces of
microorganisms and render them susceptible to lysis by complement or to phagocytosis
by macrophages. In the second type of reaction, the sensitized cells are responsible for
such actions as rejection of foreign tissue grafts and resistance against many intracellular
microbes, i.e., viruses, fungi, and some bacteria.

103. Dennis, 232-235.

36 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

104. Jose B. Cibelli, Robert P. Lanza and Michael D. West, with Carol Ezzell,
“The First Human Cloned Embryo,” Scientific American, January 2002.

105. Gina Kolata with Andrew Pollack, “A Breakthrough on Cloning? Perhaps, or

Perhaps Not Yet,” New York Times, 27 November 2001, A1-12.

106. Cibelli, x.

107. Gina Kolata, “Company Says It Produced Embryo Clones,” New York Times,
26 November 2001, A-14.

108. Sharon Begley, “Brave New Monkey,” Newsweek, 22 January 2001, 50-52.

109. Block, 63-65.

110. Garrett, 226-233.

111. Block, 65-68.

112. Zilinskas, 18.

113. Block, 68-71.

114. Fraser and Dando, 2.

115. Block, 51.

116. Dando, 41.

117. Fraser and Dando, 3.

118. Block, 47-48; Dando, 125-129.

119. Dennis, 232-235.

120. Fraser and Dando, 4; see also Dando, 127. Polymorphisms are differences in a
specific gene. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) arise from the change of just one
base pair in the DNA sequence. SNPs are markers that may lead to the genetic basis of
many diseases. Theoretically, a SNP or sets of SNPs may provide new targets for new
drugs, toxins, or bioregulators.

121. Peters, 30.

 Next Generation Bioweapons . . . 37

122. Mildred K. Cho, David Magnus, Arthur L. Caplan, Daniel McGee and the
Ethics of Genomics Group, “Ethical Considerations in Synthesizing a Minimal Genome,”
Science, Vol 286, 10 December 1999, 2087-2090.

123. Zilinskas, 13-15.

124. Fraser and Dando, 3.

125. Rick Weiss, “A Terrorist’s Fragile Footprint,” The Washington Post, 29

November 2001, 1.

126. Broad, B1-8.

127. Fraser and Dando, 3.

128. Robins, 158. See footnote 102 for definitions of humoral and cell-mediated
immunity.

129. Zilinskas, 21.

130. Dennis, 232-235.

131. Fraser and Dando, 3.

132. William A. Haseltine, “Beyond Chicken Soup,” Scientific American,

November 2001, 56-63.

133. Peters, 30.

134. Dennis, 232-235.

135. Dando, 11.

136. Block, 71.

137. Zilinskas, 5-6.

138. Alexander, 119-121, 196.

139. Block, 42.

140. Alexander, 190.

38 . . . Next Generation Bioweapons

141. Lt Col George W. Christopher, LTC Theodore J. Cieslak, MAJ Julie Pavlin,
and COL Edward M. Eitzen, “Biological Warfare: A Historical Perspective,” Journal of
the American Medical Association, Vol 278, No.5, 6 August 1997, 412-417.

142. Alexander, 192.

143. Jeffery K. Smart, “History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American

Perspective,” in Textbook of Military Medicine: Medical Aspects of Chemical and
Biological Warfare, eds. Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuji, and David R. Franz
(Washington D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, US Army, 1997), 73.

144. Drell, 358.

145. Jeffery D. Simon, “Biological Terrorism: Preparing to Meet the Threat,”

Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 278, No.5, 6 August 1997, 428-430.

146. Amy Smithson, et. al, Ataxia: The Chemical and Biological Terrorism Threat
and the U.S. Response, October 2000, as quoted by Peters in “Behind in the Biowar,” 33.

147. Elizabeth Becker and Tim Weiner, “New Office to Become a White House
Agency,” New York Times, 28 September 2001.

148. Zilinskas, 128.

149. Alexander, 116.

150. Sir William Stewart as quoted by Patricia Reaney, “Animal Disease is

Reminder of Bioterrorism Danger,” in Reuters news report, 3 September 2001.
 USAF Counterproliferation Center
The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established in 1999 to provide
education and research to the present and future leaders of the USAF, to assist them in
their activities to counter the threats posed by adversaries equipped with weapons of mass
destruction

Barry R. Schneider, Director

USAF Counterproliferation Center
325 Chennault Circle
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427

Email: [email protected]

Jo Ann Eddy, Associate Editor

The Counterproliferation Papers

Email: [email protected]

(334) 953-7538 (DSN 493-7538)